CLINICAL EFFICACY OF ORAL AZITHROMYCIN VERSUS OTHER ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS IN THE TREATMENT OF TYPHOID PATIENTS ACROSS ALL AGE GROUPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

Muhammad Uzair, Saad Wali, Anees Ur Rehman, Afaq Ahmad, Muhammad Hamza Rafique, Muhammad Bilal Nadeem
{"title":"CLINICAL EFFICACY OF ORAL AZITHROMYCIN VERSUS OTHER ANTIMICROBIAL DRUGS IN THE TREATMENT OF TYPHOID PATIENTS ACROSS ALL AGE GROUPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.","authors":"Muhammad Uzair, Saad Wali, Anees Ur Rehman, Afaq Ahmad, Muhammad Hamza Rafique, Muhammad Bilal Nadeem","doi":"10.55519/JAMC-03-12881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Typhoid is a major health concern. Drug-resistant cases of typhoid have given rise to new debates. Azithromycin has shown adequate results. The study is designed to determine the clinical efficacy of oral azithromycin versus other antimicrobial drugs in typhoid patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The studies included in the systematic review are randomized controlled trials, comparing the clinical efficacy of azithromycin to other antimicrobial drugs on typhoid patients. We searched 1180 articles from Google Scholar, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, PLOS ONE, and JSTOR on 16th October, 2023. The risk of bias was analyzed by visualizing the funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's test, and plotting risk of bias graphs. Forest plots are created to display the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 14 research articles (1556 participants). Odds ratios of the treatment outcomes were extracted. In a forest plot, the overall effect of the treatment outcome (CI=95%) of azithromycin, in comparison to fluoroquinolones appeared to be favourable (Random Effect Model (REM)=2.15, heterogeneity: I2=37%, τ2= 0.1729, p=0.15, the overall pooled effect was towards right side). Compared to chloramphenicol, azithromycin showed a high odds ratio (1.23). However, there was no difference in outcome among ceftriaxone and azithromycin groups (REM=0.67, heterogeneity: I2=0%, τ2=0%, p=0.78, the overall pooled effect touched the no-effect line).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Azithromycin is more clinically efficacious than fluoroquinolones and chloramphenicol. The drug has fewer documented relapses in comparison with other antimicrobial drugs. Fever clearance time of azithromycin is greater than ceftriaxone and chloramphenicol.</p>","PeriodicalId":517395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","volume":"36 3","pages":"642-650"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-03-12881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Typhoid is a major health concern. Drug-resistant cases of typhoid have given rise to new debates. Azithromycin has shown adequate results. The study is designed to determine the clinical efficacy of oral azithromycin versus other antimicrobial drugs in typhoid patients.

Methods: The studies included in the systematic review are randomized controlled trials, comparing the clinical efficacy of azithromycin to other antimicrobial drugs on typhoid patients. We searched 1180 articles from Google Scholar, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, PLOS ONE, and JSTOR on 16th October, 2023. The risk of bias was analyzed by visualizing the funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's test, and plotting risk of bias graphs. Forest plots are created to display the findings.

Results: We identified 14 research articles (1556 participants). Odds ratios of the treatment outcomes were extracted. In a forest plot, the overall effect of the treatment outcome (CI=95%) of azithromycin, in comparison to fluoroquinolones appeared to be favourable (Random Effect Model (REM)=2.15, heterogeneity: I2=37%, τ2= 0.1729, p=0.15, the overall pooled effect was towards right side). Compared to chloramphenicol, azithromycin showed a high odds ratio (1.23). However, there was no difference in outcome among ceftriaxone and azithromycin groups (REM=0.67, heterogeneity: I2=0%, τ2=0%, p=0.78, the overall pooled effect touched the no-effect line).

Conclusions: Azithromycin is more clinically efficacious than fluoroquinolones and chloramphenicol. The drug has fewer documented relapses in comparison with other antimicrobial drugs. Fever clearance time of azithromycin is greater than ceftriaxone and chloramphenicol.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服阿奇霉素与其他抗菌药物治疗所有年龄组伤寒患者的临床疗效:随机对照试验的系统评价。
背景:伤寒是一个主要的健康问题。伤寒耐药病例引发了新的争论。阿奇霉素已显示出足够的效果。该研究旨在确定口服阿奇霉素与其他抗菌药物对伤寒患者的临床疗效。方法:纳入系统评价的研究均为随机对照试验,比较阿奇霉素与其他抗菌药物治疗伤寒患者的临床疗效。我们于2023年10月16日在b谷歌Scholar、PubMed Central、Cochrane Library、PLOS ONE和JSTOR中检索了1180篇文章。通过可视化漏斗图、Begg’s和Egger’s检验和绘制偏倚风险图来分析偏倚风险。创建了森林图来显示研究结果。结果:我们确定了14篇研究论文(1556名受试者)。提取治疗结果的优势比。在森林样地中,与氟喹诺酮类药物相比,阿奇霉素治疗结局的总体效果(CI=95%)似乎更有利(随机效应模型(REM)=2.15,异质性:I2=37%, τ2= 0.1729, p=0.15,总体合并效应偏右)。与氯霉素相比,阿奇霉素的优势比较高(1.23)。然而,头孢曲松组和阿奇霉素组的结局没有差异(REM=0.67,异质性:I2=0%, τ2=0%, p=0.78,总体合并效应触及无效应线)。结论:阿奇霉素的临床疗效优于氟喹诺酮类药物和氯霉素。与其他抗菌药物相比,该药的复发记录较少。阿奇霉素的退热时间大于头孢曲松和氯霉素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PREVALENCE AND PATTERN OF INJURY IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES PRESENTED AT KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE PESHAWAR. PREOPERATIVE DENOSUMAB AND FEASIBILITY OF LESS MORBID SURGERY IN CAMPANACCI STAGE 3 GIANT CELL TUMOUR OF BONE. ADENOMYOEPITHELIOMA WITH CARCINOMA; EPITHELIAL-MYOEPITHELIAL CARCINOMA WITH EARLY PULMONARY METASTASIS. ASSESSMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIC EFFECT OF RECTUS SHEATH BLOCK IN GYNECOLOGICAL LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY. ASSOCIATION OF CONSANGUINITY WITH RECURRENT FOETAL LOSS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1